4.8 Article

Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth's energy balance

期刊

NATURE GEOSCIENCE
卷 5, 期 1, 页码 31-36

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/NGEO1327

关键词

-

资金

  1. US Department of Energy's Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research [DE-SC0004956]
  2. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Climate Program Office
  3. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) [DE-SC0004956] Funding Source: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Earth's energy balance is key to understanding climate and climate variations that are caused by natural and anthropogenic changes in the atmospheric composition. Despite abundant observational evidence for changes in the energy balance over the past decades(1-3), the formal detection of climate warming and its attribution to human influence has so far relied mostly on the difference between spatio-temporal warming patterns of natural and anthropogenic origin(4-6). Here we present an alternative attribution method that relies on the principle of conservation of energy, without assumptions about spatial warming patterns. Based on a massive ensemble of simulations with an intermediate-complexity climate model we demonstrate that known changes in the global energy balance and in radiative forcing tightly constrain the magnitude of anthropogenic warming. We find that since the mid-twentieth century, greenhouse gases contributed 0.85 degrees C of warming (5-95% uncertainty: 0.6-1.1 degrees C), about half of which was offset by the cooling effects of aerosols, with a total observed change in global temperature of about 0.56 degrees C. The observed trends are extremely unlikely (<5%) to be caused by internal variability, even if current models were found to strongly underestimate it. Our method is complementary to optimal fingerprinting attribution and produces fully consistent results, thus suggesting an even higher confidence that human-induced causes dominate the observed warming.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据